You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A formal concept analysis approach to consensus clustering of multi-experiment expression data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-15-151 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Hristoskova, Veselka Boeva, Elena Tsiporkova |
| Abstract |
Presently, with the increasing number and complexity of available gene expression datasets, the combination of data from multiple microarray studies addressing a similar biological question is gaining importance. The analysis and integration of multiple datasets are expected to yield more reliable and robust results since they are based on a larger number of samples and the effects of the individual study-specific biases are diminished. This is supported by recent studies suggesting that important biological signals are often preserved or enhanced by multiple experiments. An approach to combining data from different experiments is the aggregation of their clusterings into a consensus or representative clustering solution which increases the confidence in the common features of all the datasets and reveals the important differences among them. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 33% |
| Norway | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 26% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 19 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2014.
All research outputs
#15,301,167
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,372
of 7,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,126
of 227,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#94
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.